Month: May 2016

What is a Master?

A Master can have a sexual or spiritual connotation or both. Both will exert varying degrees of influence/control over your life for the purposes of changing/improving you. In the case of a sexual relationship, the Master grooms his submissive to serve his needs and in the case of a spiritual relationship, the Master employs various methods to free followers’ minds from spiritual/existentialist bonds. In both cases, submission is voluntary (or else it is meaningless, as we have seen in faiths based on false ideology) and desired on the part of the one who gives it (take that, Marxist Feminist shills).

I notice a trend among many spiritual teachers. They have read some books/articles about Yoga/Reiki/Pranic Healing etc. and then decided that this was a lifestyle where their personality flaws would be masked by the false superiority of a (very small) knowledge differential, and pushed forward with their effort to obtain a following. It seemed that all questions I asked of them already had a mindless, pre-rehearsed answer designed to minimize the amount of effort they had to invest in their knowledge/abilities while still reaping maximal benefits. In fact, I never met any spiritual teacher able to answer even simple questions satisfactorily until I found my Guru. Words cannot convey the relief and joy associated to that.

A poor attitude towards collaborative learning is pretty standard for most people (vanilla or not). “What can I get out of this?” rather than “How may I serve/help/contribute?” is often their prime directive (whether consciously aware of it or not). While the latter is great for success, the former is a recipe for self-alienation and disaster. I am very sad to say that most people seeking control/dominance over someone else’s life (whether sexual, spiritual or both) aren’t doing it for anything even resembling the right reasons. I have listened to many people over the years and come to the conclusion that pretty much anyone actively seeking a spiritual following is almost certainly not able to handle its associated responsibilities. From the “weekend warrior” Gurus to plagiarist “Yoga Masters” to practitioners of non-scientifically validated healing practices, they all seem to be seeking the same thing: maximal impact/adulation for minimal effort, often to the detriment of their following.

If this is you, then you will never be revered and respected to the extent required for your name to live on past the lifetime of your body. At best, you will spend your life surrounded by half-wits, desperately avoiding anyone smart enough to see past your selfish narcissism. Your following (if you can manage one) will be as ignorant and lost as you are and your name will live on (at best) as being synonymous with spiritual fraudulence. One good example of this is Osho, the Guru with 100 Rolls Royces. In retrospect, he has no credibility. His name lives on as a joke more or less: his modern-day lavish resort a constant reminder of his spiritual superficiality.

Get Freed from False Ideology

No amount of Marxist-Feminist brainwashing will change the fact that most people are naturally submissive (even dominant people) to one extent or another. Human weaknesses include the fear of abandonment, the need to belong/surrender, the need to feel connections, and more. These can all be greatly assuaged by finding a proper Master (upon whom we surrender our fears/weaknesses). A Master will assume responsibility and control of your emotions/experience for the purposes of guiding you to higher spiritual and emotional fulfillment. You must be convinced that you can learn from them and honour your commitment above all else. Anything less is not going to work.

Since all humans are fallible, surrendering to a Guru/Master is as much a symbolic gesture as anything else. True aspirants will not mourn this fact, but rather celebrate it. If we are always cultivating the quality of non-attachment (not denial but full awareness & simultaneous dispassion), we get to own the majority stake in our spiritual lives as well as reap majority rewards, regardless of the failures of our teachers, Gurus, Masters…. Being disappointed by someone we trusted is much less painful if we choose to primarily focus on our own development.

No genuine aspirant can ever delegate their discernment to a third party and still expect to be on a legitimate spiritual path (looking at you: people who have an attachment to mainstream media being truthful). Even when completely surrendered to your Master, you still own your choices and are responsible for them. The Master simply makes that path easier.

My Preferred Qualities in a Spiritual Master (Guru)

Added this when I watched a Sargon video where fat people said that liking skinny people is oppressive. We’re scorch-tacular you turds and your misery is palpable.

The ability to care about someone while still maintaining non-attachment is very important. This ensures your Guru will not be personally offended by your failures and can give you guidance uncoloured by their ego (something many “Yogis” should take note of post-haste).

I cannot accept the guidance of someone who does not possess knowledge. In my view, a Guru who is both highly knowledgeable and aware of their limitations is the best.

Compatibility is perhaps the most important attribute. Given that the mind is quantum mechanical in nature, its progress is mainly non-linear (linearity is a quality of classical, not QM systems). This means that new spiritual achievements tend to happen in discrete steps (challenge: describe when this is not true), rather than steady continuous growth. Since navigating from one spiritual milestone to the next is treacherous, a Guru is necessary for progress.

Finally, if you are going to receive teachings from your Master, you must be open to receiving every bit as much as they are open to giving.

Definitions

Ψ: The uppercase Psy is the General form of a Quantum Mechanical Waveform

The Measurement Limit: There are 3 dimensions of Space and 1 of Time.

For a refresher, please see the Periodic Table as the microcanonical Measurement Limit, and Quantum Geometry I. In short: there are 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension on all levels of magnification. The level of magnification determines to what degree these dimensions are entangled, with the minimally entangled limit observed on the macroscale (Special Relativity) and the maximally entangled limit observed on the microscale (no elements past 118).

Introduction

A coordinate system is a means of ordering a space so that measurements can be made. This may seem silly at first: can’t we take measurements anywhere? Let’s examine the simplest metric: distance. Since our experience feels continuous (we cannot detect intermolecular spacing with our eyes, for example), it seems natural that we could make a continuous measurement between two points. However, given the discrete (indivisible) nature of atoms, it follows that that macroscopic measurements will only be approximately correct: QM Uncertainty precludes the absolute certainty of any measurements. Although we won’t often run into this limit in real life, it is helpful in understanding that all geometric coordinate systems (CS) are only approximations (by the discrete nature of the atom).

Of course this does not mean it is realistic (or desirable) to model space as discrete. Mathematics usually prefers an idealized CS (= continuous, that is: for any two different measurements, there exists a third measurement (different from the first two) which is larger than the smaller and smaller than the larger one (i.e. the average)). This seems reasonable … until we reach distances on the order of a single atom. At this point, attempts to measure the system will greatly perturb it: distance is not continuous on the fine scale.

Although the atomic nature of reality precludes true continuity, we still use geometric CS’s (because what else are we going to use?).

Geometric Coordinate Systems

Although these coordinate systems are (pretty much) equivalent in the sense that they hold the same amount of information (a sphere is a sphere regardless of the coordinate system in which it exists), one CS will be optimal for modelling a particular shape. If we take a sphere centred on the origin for example, such is complex to define explicitly in R3: {x, y, z, | x2 + y2 + z2 = a2}, where a = radius of sphere. It is comparatively simpler in the spherical coordinate system which defines the sphere as: {a,0,0}. This is not because of any fundamental change or loss of information, but rather because R3 regards points in space as 3 orthogonal (perpendicular) linear measurements (x, y & z) and spherical coordinates regards points as an absolute distance from the origin, and two perpendicular angular displacements (see diagram below). The surface of a sphere is all points equidistant from a centre (“Origin”) and thus is much easier to model in spherical coordinates, where we have only to define the radius to fully describe the sphere.

Spherical Coordinate System

Regardless of the situation we are modelling, the choice of the proper coordinate system is crucial. In geometric problems, measurements can be greatly simplified by changing coordinate systems. A popular transformation used by Physics and [the limitations of which were] elaborated in my previous post involves changing the centre of mass of the object to the geometric centre of the coordinate system. This operation is beneficial as it has the potential to reduce the number of variables (unknown quantities), simplifying calculations. That is: from the perspective of the CoM, the total linear momentum of the system is zero (because the CoM does not feel its momentum relative to itself). This is easy to understand by way of example. If we were watching Earth from a spaceship, we would see it moving. When we are on Earth, we do not. Thus we can [largely] ignore this motion in terrestrial calculations with no loss of accuracy and great gains in simplicity.

The Cylindrical (Polar) Coordinate System

Fundamentally, a coordinate system is a lens through which a phenomenon is examined. It does not [usually although there are some exceptions by way of numerical limits] change the phenomenon under observation, but rather can be changed to better suit the experimental circumstances.

Quantum Mechanics

I have long argued that Quantum Mechanics (specifically the Copenhagen Interpretation) is a coordinate system. While the language of the Copenhagen Interpretation is more general than geometric coordinate systems (the QMCS can be applied to all geometric coordinate systems), we still note that its postulates are intimately linked to measurement vis-à-vis the event of [QM] observation. If the imposition of coordinate system serves to make measurements possible and QM measurements are restricted by the postulates Copenhagen Interpretation, it seems plausible that QM must be a coordinate system.

A wave function Ψ represents the state of the system. It encapsulates everything that can be known about that system before an observation; there are no additional “hidden parameters”. The wavefunction evolves smoothly in time while isolated from other systems.

The properties of the system are subject to a principle of incompatibility. Certain properties cannot be jointly defined for the same system at the same time. The incompatibility is expressed quantitatively by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. For example, if a particle at a particular instant has a definite location, it is meaningless to speak of its momentum at that instant.

During an observation, the system must interact with a laboratory device. When that device makes a measurement, the wave function of the systems is said to collapse, or irreversibly reduce to an eigenstate of the observable that is registered.

The results provided by measuring devices are essentially classical, and should be described in ordinary language. This was particularly emphasized by Bohr, and was accepted by Heisenberg.

The description given by the wave function is probabilistic. This principle is called the Born rule, after Max Born.

The wave function expresses a necessary and fundamental wave–particle duality. This should be reflected in ordinary language accounts of experiments. An experiment can show particle-like properties, or wave-like properties, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.

The inner workings of atomic and subatomic processes are necessarily and essentially inaccessible to direct observation, because the act of observing them would greatly affect them.

When quantum numbers are large, they refer to properties which closely match those of the classical description. This is the correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg.

Subjective Consciousness is Wavelike

Geometric coordinate systems tell us how measurements are made (i.e. with lines or spheres). The QMCS tells us the same, but not from a geometric standpoint. We postulate that the parameters of the QMCS derive solely from the Measurement Limit of the universe.

The major difference with the QMCS is that we are not describing an ideal object (i.e. the Sphere in R3), but the fabric of SpaceTime itself (and associated measurement limits). Since reality is quantum mechanical, it is subject to the exclusions imposed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and measurements will thus be limited.

We must take great care to understand the action of imposing metrics on SpaceTime in the QMCS, lest we accidentally violate the Measurement Limit leading to 15 false particles in the Standard Model.

It’s too many particles.

Additional Applications of the QMCS

Although above is likely difficult to understand, it must be viewed as prerequisite knowledge for understanding the QM nature of the mind. The individual subjective conscious (Ψ) is multi-dimensional, localized (of specific origin), entangled (particular measurements can affect Ψ in its entirety) and coherent (coherent enough to take meaningful measurements from). All of these attributes must be understood before we can draw meaningful predictions from the Quantum Mind Hypothesis.

We additionally note that although the Measurement Limit, there is no reason that Ψ (defined as the individual subjective conscious) should be bounded by 4 dimensions (basis vectors). This is because Ψ exists on multiple orders of magnitude (and such are approximately independent), both spatially and energetically.